Yes you’re right (Goldman was bad/silly to bring up).
But it seems good to make the main point:
It’s possible and even ideal for salary to reflect impact.
However, people have used outside salaries to explain differential salaries. These justifications are extremely convincing (even if it is self serving write this).
(I don’t think you did this) but with the above justification, suggesting these norms are signals of impact risks leaning too hard on them. This might come off as slippery or wrong in certain situations.
Yes, the scope is “Orgs whose donors you respect for their capital allocation.” Goldman doesn’t have donors at all.
Yes you’re right (Goldman was bad/silly to bring up).
But it seems good to make the main point:
It’s possible and even ideal for salary to reflect impact.
However, people have used outside salaries to explain differential salaries. These justifications are extremely convincing (even if it is self serving write this).
(I don’t think you did this) but with the above justification, suggesting these norms are signals of impact risks leaning too hard on them. This might come off as slippery or wrong in certain situations.